Getting a second opinion on IPCC’s view of climate change

A common argument in warmist circles goes like this missive from Prince Charles:

“If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can’t wait for [endless] tests… The risk of delay is so enormous that we can’t wait until we are absolutely sure the planet is dying.”

But, if the treatment prescribed means your child will face significant personal restrictions in the future due to the treatment, and the doctor refuses to discuss alternatives, wouldn’t you as a parent want to get a second opinion? Of course you would, and that is what the NIPCC report is all about. As I noted in Excerpts from the leaked AR5 Summary for Policy Makers there doesn’t appear to be a single climate skeptic involved, so getting a second opinion is the role this NIPCC reports fills. Note – I had no role nor input to this report, but I think it is important to consider if for no other reason than to get a second opinion. – Anthony

Major New Report on Tuesday: Climate Science Says Global Warming Is Not a Crisis

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) on Tuesday, Sept. 17 will release a major new report on climate change science produced by an international team of 40 scientists at a press conference at the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago. Conference call available to those who cannot attend.

CHICAGO, IL (PRWEB) September 16, 2013

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) on Tuesday, Sept. 17 will release a major new report on climate change science produced by an international team of 40 scientists at a press conference at the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago.

The new report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, challenges what its authors say are the overly alarmist reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose next report is due out later this month.

(NOTE: If you cannot attend the Chicago press conference in person, a conference call with the NIPCC scientists will take place the same day, Tuesday, Sept. 17 at Noon Central Time. Register here to participate in the conference call.)

Media: Open to all credentialed press, register here for the Noon Central Time conference call after the live Chicago event
Copies of a Summary for Policymakers, an executive summary, and the entire book (unbound) will be available to reporters at the news conference. All three documents will be available for free online following the news conference.

“This is probably the most important report on climate change ever produced. Its breadth and depth rival that of the IPCC’s reports. Its authors have no agenda except to find the truth. It anticipates and soundly refutes the IPCC’s hypothesis that global warming is man-made and will be harmful. And it comes at a time when global warming alarmism is retreating among academics, the general public, and the political class.”

Dr. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., atmospheric and space physicist, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP):

“Scientists have not been able to devise an empirically validated theory proving that higher atmospheric CO2 levels will lead to higher global average surface temperatures (GAST).

“Moreover, if the causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher GAST is broken by invalidating each of the EPA’s three lines of evidence, then the EPA’s assertions that increasing CO2 concentrations also cause sea-level increases and more frequent and severe storms, floods, and droughts are also disproved.

Dr. Craig Idso, Ph.D., founder and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:

“Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II) provides the scientific balance that is missing from the work of the IPCC. Although the IPCC claims to be unbiased and to have based its assessments on the best available science, this report demonstrates that such is certainly not the case.

“In many instances the IPCC has seriously exaggerated its conclusions, distorted relevant facts, and ignored the findings of key scientific studies that run counter to its viewpoint. CCR-II examines literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles whose findings do not support, and indeed often contradict, the IPCC’s perspective on climate change.”

Dr. Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., paleontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist, and environmental scientist; former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University (Townsville, Australia):

“NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered II report is full of factual evidence that today’s climate continues to jog along well within the bounds of previous natural variation. The empirical pigeons have therefore finally come home to roost on the IPCC’s speculative computer models — and they carry the message that ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, the intensity and magnitude of extreme events is not increasing, and dangerous global warming is not occurring.”

The series is published by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit research and education organization. Economist magazine in 2012 called The Heartland Institute “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism on man-caused climate change.”The New York Times calls Heartland “the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.”

Like earlier volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series, this new report cites thousands of peer-reviewed articles to determine the current state-of-the-art of climate science. NIPCC authors paid special attention to contributions that were overlooked by the IPCC or presented data, discussion, or implications arguing against the IPCC’s claim that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Most notably, the authors say the IPCC has exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide were to double and whatever warming may occur would likely be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.

NIPCC is a project of three nonprofit organizations: Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute. The lead authors of the new report are Craig Idso, Ph.D. and S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., identified above, and Robert Carter, Ph.D., former head of the School of Earth Sciences, James Cook University (Australia). Scientists from around the world participated as lead authors, section authors, contributors, and reviewers.

The first two volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered series, published in 2009 and 2011, are widely recognized as the most comprehensive and authoritative critiques of the reports of the United Nations’ IPCC. The complete texts and reviews of both volumes are available here and here. In June, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the two volumes.

The Heartland Institute is a 29-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely(at)heartland(dot)org and 312/377-4000, or visit our Web site.

Absolutely. Of course if the child has had thousands of fevers before in the past, many of them worse than the current one and never died there is no reason to panic and subject the child to a harmful drug regime.

It’s a classic false analogy, a muddled way of thinking. I often wonder whether the Monarchy can survive once the people of the UK realize how much wool has been pulled over their eyes and how many elderly people have died of hypothermia in the dark as a result of pseudoscience, “royal” societies, NGOs, and fradulent “investigations.”

“If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can’t wait for [endless] tests… The risk of delay is so enormous that we can’t wait until we are absolutely sure the planet is dying.”

A more correct comparison is if your doctor says your child has a fever but refuses to provide any proof, wants you to pay for expensive and long-lasting treatments immediately, and denigrates you by calling you “baby killer” around the nurses and people in waiting room when you refuse to take action without proof.

If my child had a fever and suddenly went into remission for no apparent reason despite the treatments not having time to work and was up laughing and playing I would still do the tests but back off the treatment.

If Prince Charles thinks a child with a fever is a child that’s dying, well, all I can say is he desperately needs to return to high school for a refresher course in remedial home economics. That imbecilic statement of his reminds me of when I was baby sitting two friends’ five year old child 18 years ago while they were out for the evening. The father cautioned me that their son was “groupy” – whatever that meant. At 3am the parents returned home, the mother instantly hitting the hay. The dad and I chewed the fat, chit chatted, shot the bull, discussed world events (ok, I’m done) for a bit till his five year old had woken up to a world of miserableness. Unable to locate a home thermometer the dad sent me on a perilous resupply mission to a neighborhood all nighter to buy one. Mission accomplished, I returned with the prize in hand and the father proceeded to take the child’s temperature. Well, the father measured his five year old son’s temperature at a phenomenal 111 degrees Fahrenheit. (That’s not a misprint.) Since we hadn’t put the child in a microwave I was a little suspicious of that temperature. Nonetheless the father proceeded to rush his child to the nearest emergency room, yours truly in tow and feeling a little silly sitting in the passenger seat and watching the red stoplights whiz by as the father blew every one of them. Thankfully it was now 3:30 in the morning: there was no traffic – or police. My friend, Father of the Year, carried his son up to the nurse and excitedly explained that his temperature was 111. I stood there feeling silly. The woman nurse gave us a look as if to say, “Men!?!” She then explained that dear old dad didn’t shake the thermometer down. She gave the child a couple of baby Tylenols and dad and I were back on the road, stopping for stoplights now. Returning home we cracked open a couple beers. Trust me, we didn’t give the five year old one. But maybe we need to give Prince Charles one, or two, or five, or six, or a few six packs until he calms down. Ditto for the IPCC, and all the warmers. Then, once the alcohol’s sobered them up a bit, we can explain that maybe their thermometers weren’t really shook down the way they’re trying to shake the people down. Then, maybe we can explain that fevers may very well be naturally occurring and that you don’t give a child (or an economic system) a double lung transplant for a fever for chrissake. As a renowned thoracic surgeon once explained to me, “We don’t do a lung transplant till the risk of dying from the operation is exceeded by the risk of dying from the disease.” Ok, all you warmers? Got it? Let’s not make society die in an operation that’s worse than the disease it purports to fix; assuming there’s even a disease in the first place.

Well if the doctor knows his thermometer is only accurate to >5C and the distribution of the error is not standard but biased to the high side, then it is time to get an accurate thermometer and actually see if the child has a fever.

Obviously if a child has a temperature that has risen from 98.5 degrees to 98.7 degrees in one day you should assume the child’s temperature will continue to rise at the same or a higher rate for the next 100 years. Since the child’s temperature will increase 182.5 degrees to 281.2 degrees next year his lungs must be immediately removed.

This is backed up by well understood mathematics. A recent survey of top medical experts shows that 99.9% of all medical doctors agree that adding .2 365 times would in fact equal 182.5, that this temperature would be deadly, action should be taken if a child’s temperature rose over 100 degrees. The science is just too solid to do nothing.

Joseph Bast says “This is probably the most important report on climate change ever produced. Its breadth and depth rival that of the IPCC’s reports. Its authors have no agenda except to find the truth.”

This is same Bast who said for the cigarette industry that “no victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can ‘prove’ his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.”

As a baby and toddler, my child always got fevers. High temp ones. But, they only lasted a few hours and his sickness only lasted for 24 hours. I learned this from studying him and his response to rising temperatures. I learned to not freak out each time a temperature would spike. If doctor had told me that during his next fever (or as Gore calls it, “FEVA”) that I would have to let my child undergo surgery to remove the single factor that was causing his temperature spike, I think I would cry foul.

But in today’s society, I would be arrested for bad parenting, jailed for hypocrisy, and my child removed and sent to hospital for state’s health and well-being.

Pippen Kool says:
September 16, 2013 at 7:05 pm
“This is same Bast who said for the cigarette industry that “no victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can ‘prove’ his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.””

Surgically charge the rich influential alarmists for every dollar plus interest spent on their falsehoods; charge them a penalty of at least three times both their costs to people, but $1 million for every death caused by the diversion of funds and acreage to global warming fear mongering.

Imagine you are a very insecure parent. In fact, so poorly informed and nervous, you are prone to suggestions about the well being of your child.

Then a person, let’s call Dr UN, comes to you and states they are a ‘special doctor’ and states they have observed your child and although you can’t verify these symptoms, he has a computer that models your child (even though it lacks significant fundamental physics, parameterizes vital organs and can’t model more than a few weeks in detail). He says the model predicts that in the future, terrible things will happen to your child’s health if you don’t change your lifestyle now and continue to pay Dr UN inc for ongoing lifestyle modification management, he predicts a series of catastrophic symptoms will develop on your child within the next decade leading to it’s certain death.

Shocked, you look for a second opinion. You find an obstetrician that says, “There is nothing seriously wrong with your child, these so called ‘symptoms’ have happened before and are quite common today.” Relieved, you go back to Dr. UN to suggest you can stop making payments now, but instead of him being pleased for your child, he makes wild personal attacks at the character of your obstetrician and states: “He is not a ‘special doctor.’ Even worse, he is a DENIER of the computer model and if you follow his advice it shows you hate your baby and are an unfit parent.

Fearing the worst, you pay Dr UN inc, but unfortunately, you haven’t been changing your lifestyle. In fact, you have increased the prohibited outputs. So well into the decade, as you are expecting the worst, you are startled and relieved that no such symptoms appear on your child. Once again, you confront Dr UN again and he replies: “Yes, you are right. The old model predicted that and it was not accurate enough, but my new model is improved now and it confirms the situation is worse for your child than we thought! If you don’t keep paying me into the future, your child is certainly doomed.”

Now Prince Charles, you have a choice: Keep paying people that call themselves ‘special doctors,’ or do the right thing by your child and GROW A PAIR!

Surgically charge the rich influential alarmists for every dollar plus interest spent on their falsehoods; charge them a penalty of at least three times both their costs to people, but $1 million for every death caused by the diversion of funds and acreage to global warming fear mongering.

Joseph Bast says “This is probably the most important report on climate change ever produced. Its breadth and depth rival that of the IPCC’s reports. Its authors have no agenda except to find the truth.”

This is same Bast who said for the cigarette industry that “no victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can ‘prove’ his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.”

What a spokesman to have on your side.

If he made that statement in the early days of the controversy, before more definitive studies had been published–as I suspect he did–then he’s hardly very culpable.

“unfortunately, people will see “Heartland Institute” and dismiss it out of hand”

Only a fool would do that. For a foolish example:

Pippen Kool says:

This is same Bast who said for the cigarette industry that “no victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can ‘prove’ his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.” What a spokesman to have on your side.

Pippen Fool:

I challenge you to produce one legitimate study that proves second-hand smoke is the cause of those diseases. Smarter people than you have tried, and failed.

The “second-hand smoke” canard was nothing but a political agenda in action. Now, the same kind of fools are claiming that “third-hand smoke kills.”

But while you’re scrambling to find your [non-existent], properly peer reviewed study proving that second hand smoke kills, maybe you can find one that claims third hand smoke is a killer. Both assertions are pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Moral: try to think for yourself. So far, it is clear you haven’t tried that approach.

Just last week, in fact, Pippen Fool stated: “Maybe people should check the data before making stuff up.”

Pippen Kool
September 16, 2013 at 7:05
says:
‘This is same Bast who said for the cigarette industry that “no victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can ‘prove’ his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.”

What a spokesman to have on your side.’

Out of curiosity I’d like to inquire if you are aware of the political donations Al Gore received in the past from the tobacco industry, or the fact that the family farm in Tennessee grew tobacco. Ok, now it’s my turn, ‘What a spokesman to have on your side.’ Fun little game, isn’t it?

Tom J says: “Out of curiosity I’d like to inquire if you are aware of the political donations Al Gore received in the past from the tobacco industry, or the fact that the family farm in Tennessee grew tobacco.”

Pls instruct us on Gore’s advocacy for cigarette use. His family lived on a tobacco plantation, was that his fault?
He also inherited a mansion that uses more carbon than many houses. He also flies to rallies in jets. They use carbon too. And yet he has single-handedly made more of an impact on global warming awareness than any other single person even scientists

Gore Junior did not “live” on a tobacco plantation. He was born & raised in Washington, DC. Some summers, however, he did visit his family’s tobacco farm. Yet so proud was he of having handled the noxious weed then, that he famously boasted to Southern tobacco farmers when running for president in 1988 that, “Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve chopped it. I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.”

But at the Democratic national convention in 1996, Gore gave a moving speech about his only sister’s painful death from lung cancer. Then he pushed the Clinton Administration’s aggressive anti-smoking campaign.

Yet he continued to accept checks from the family farm for years after his sister died. And he accepted contributions from tobacco companies as late as 1990.

As for his Nashville mansion, it was not inherited. Gore’s dad Senior died in 1998. Prince Albert & Tipper bought their Nashville mansion in 2002.

I can’t instruct you on Gore’s advocacy for cigarette use. Can you instruct me on Bast’s advocacy? BTW: You didn’t comment on the fact that Gore accepted campaign donations from the cigarette industry.

‘His family lived on a tobacco plantation, was that his fault?
He also inherited a mansion that uses more carbon than many houses.’

Nothing prevents him from selling it. Also, could you be a little more specific as to what kind of carbon his mansion uses? Additionally, I’d like to ask if he inherited that additional mansion in Mendocito. Or, if he just bought it. And, does it come with a houseboat too? Or, is that a feature reserved to the Tennessee mansion?

‘He also flies to rallies in jets.’

He most certainly does.

‘They use carbon too.’

Um, not to put too fine a point on this, but when I drink water am I drinking hydrogen? Or oxygen? If I put salt in that water and gargle with it am I gargling sodium? Sodium hydrogen? Let’s get off this sloppy, lazy, carbon nonsense. It’s carbon dioxide bud. And Gore’s mansions (plural) and jet business trips (and they ARE business trips) don’t use carbon nor do they produce it (which is what I think you meant). They produce carbon dioxide. And so do you. And so does your pet dog if you have one. And so do the spiders in my house and the squirrels outside in the tree.

“… And yet he has single-handedly made more of an impact on global warming awareness than any other single person even scientists.”
++++
Pippen: Could you elaborate on what good Al Gore has done? I take it you’re alluding that there is something Gore did that helped humanity in some way. Please be specific and provide something good that Gore has done.

Joseph Bast says “This is probably the most important report on climate change ever produced. Its breadth and depth rival that of the IPCC’s reports. Its authors have no agenda except to find the truth.”

This is same Bast who said for the cigarette industry that “no victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can ‘prove’ his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.”

No, it’s the Bast who said “no tropical cyclone, tornado, etc. can ‘prove’ its formation was caused by exposure to global silliness.”

If the doctor prescribes that a hole must be drilled in the child’s head to release the evil spirits, more than a second opinion is required.

Kaboom gave the best analogy. The infancy of climate science is similar to medicine in the middle ages. Like medicine in the middle ages, when the concept of bacteria and viruses were unknown, the contributing factors and their weight to global temperature are not yet known either (as has been proven by Gaia herself). So yes, Prince Charles wants to drill a hole in the child’s head.

If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can’t wait for [endless] tests… The risk of delay is so enormous
=================
nonsense. giving the wrong treatment can be more dangerous than giving no treatment. no wonder mommy won’t let him be king.

From the CDC:Taking antibiotics when you or your child has a virus may do more harm than good. In fact, in children, antibiotics are the most common cause of emergency department visits for adverse drug events.http://www.cdc.gov/features/getsmart/

Prince Charles
“If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can’t wait for [endless] tests… The risk of delay is so enormous that we can’t wait until we are absolutely sure the planet is dying.”

In July 2009 Prince Charles gave a stark warming to industrialists. He said in a speech that we have only 96 months left to save the world. He also said that the “age of convenience” was over. Now compare the urgency of speech and the way he lives. He wants other to have less while he continues to have more. I’m not buying, pun intended.

Prince Charles
“If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can’t wait for [endless] tests… The risk of delay is so enormous that we can’t wait until we are absolutely sure the planet is dying.”

Absolutely correct. Would Prince Charles use homeopathy for that child? He has been a long time advocate of this type of treatment. Would he want a second opinion? The wrong treatment can also kill the child.

The Montreal Gazette – 10 January, 1985
Prince Charles fosters alternative medicines
“It is frightening how dependent on drugs we are all becoming and how easy it is for doctors to prescribe them…”

The EPA funds but does not do studies. Maybe that’s why you could give no link to a study? Even the title of the publication you produced does not say that passive smoking causes cancer.

The EPA says atmospheric CO2 is a “pollutant”. But since atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past, naturally and without a net deleterious effect, atmospheric CO2 cannot be a pollutant. CO2 is not even a “toxin”, or not anymore than water is a “toxin”. Water vapor is not a pollutant. It occurs at much higher concentrations and has a much greater “green house” effect over-all and per molecule than CO2. Therefore CO2 is not a pollutant.

The EPA incorrectly accepted the ipcc’s AR4 as applicable to the question of whether CO2 is a “pollutant”, and without peer reviewing it. The ipcc says it does not do science. The science contained in the AR4 was unable to provide even one correct prediction as to “mainstream” Climate Science’s hypothesis that CO2 “drives” climate.

The unfortunate result of the above, and much more, is that the EPA is no longer credible.

Joseph Bast says “This is probably the most important report on climate change ever produced. Its breadth and depth rival that of the IPCC’s reports. Its authors have no agenda except to find the truth.”

This is same Bast who said for the cigarette industry that “no victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can ‘prove’ his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.”

What a spokesman to have on your side.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bast is someone who understands statistics and science and doesn’t fall for the hysterics hype. Unfortunately for you he is correct about ” exposure to secondhand smoke.”

“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

Pippen Kool: Thank you for pointing out the weakness of the report. It is funded by the Heartland Institute and the people involved can be attacked personally.
Thank you also for pointing out the strengths of the report (which you have done by omission).

Namely, the science is unimpeachable.

Now, the question for those of us who care about the environment is: What is the correct scientific advice to follow? Clearly, we both can see it is the NIPCC.

Your political interests are irrelevant to the planet or the needs of the people of the world. But the science matters.

I believe Prince Charles, it would be more accurate analogy would be:
Imagine you are a very insecure parent. In fact, so poorly informed and nervous, you are prone to suggestions about the well being of your child.

There is a psychological term for this, its called “Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy”. What it refers to is parents that are constantly paranoid that their child is suffering from some – almost always imaginary – medical condition. Children with such a parent are constantly being rushed to hospital when nothing is wrong with them. The parent’s loneliness, need for attention and gratification at the attention of medical staff and the ability to force people to listen to rambling narrative describing their child’s imaginary illnesses lie behind the condition.

The global warming scare is a similar psychological illness analogous to the “hypochondriac” condition prevalent in Victorian Britain a hundred and fifty years ago, where middle class folks luxuriated in obsessing about countless imaginary ailments, whose whole lives revolved around the latest set of bogus treatments for their imaginary illnesses.

You could call being an AGW activitst as being “environmental hypochondriac by proxy” where the environment is substituted for one own body.

Kerosene, a mixture of carbon chains that typically contain between 6 and 16 carbon atoms per molecule.” From the Wikipaedia article on Kerosene – aka paraffin. This means there would be around 14 to 34 hydrogen atoms per molecule – rather more than “just a few to keep it liquid”. Actually one could just as easily put it – mostly hydrogen, with a few carbon atoms in it to make it a liquid.

“no victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can ‘prove’ his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.” This statement is unfortunately correct. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, it is virtually impossible to determine the cause of a cancer. There are many chemicals that have been implicated but, and I stand to be corrected, there are none which, with proper application, can be guaranteed to cause cancer (I except radium, plutonium, and similar radioactive elements). What is true is that there is a very good statistical relation between smoking and cancer. So if you smoke, you are more likely to get cancer. The more you smoke the more likely you are to get cancer. But it is not guaranteed, any more than if you do not smoke you will not get cancer.

It is the same with CO2 and temperature. The global temperature has been rising since about 1816 – in fits and starts. The concentration of CO2 has been rising since ??? – when ever measurements were first made. Good correlation, but not perfect, and the variations are such as to indicate that other factors are in play.

dbstealey says: “I challenge you to produce one legitimate study that proves second-hand smoke is the cause of those diseases. Smarter people than you have tried, and failed.”

Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: lung cancer and other disorders.Washington (DC): Environmental Protection Agency. 1992…..
That took me about 5 seconds. Can’t you use Google? Let’s see, now you are going to tell me it’s the EPA so it can’t be trusted because you are a skeptic. Whatever, your problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From William Briggs Phd Statistics:

Let’s add in a layer of uncertainty and see what happens. But first hike up your shorts and plant yourself somewhere quiet because we’re in the thick of it.

The size of relative risks (1.06) touted by authors like Jerrett get the juices flowing of bureaucrats and activists who see any number north of 1 reason for intervention. Yet in their zeal for purity they ignore evidence which admits things aren’t as bad as they appear…..

All along we have assumed we could eliminate exposure completely. We cannot. Thus the effect of regulation is always less than touted. How much less depends on the situation and our ability to predict future behavior and costs. Not so easy!

I could go on and on, adding in other, albeit smaller, layers of uncertainty. All of which push that effectiveness probability closer and closer to 50%. But enough is enough. You get the idea.

An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!

Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A different approach to epidemiology might take a broader perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just one risk factor, including social factors.

Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine….

we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease
would spread……

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS” 7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 November 2004.

“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

And the commenter then makes a third comment and moves in for the kill

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

I’ve done the math here and this is how it works out with second hand smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

phlogiston says:
September 17, 2013 at 1:10 am
=============================
Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy can be even worse than you describe. In many cases the parent deliberately harms the child to reinforce their claim.

It seems to me that there is a clear analogy between this and the way in which the warmistas have changed the historical records so as to provide a (false) basis for their beliefs. “You don’t believe me when I say that we’re heading for catastrophe? I’ll show you. Look! Look now!!”

Prince Charles should be forced to take, say, his new grandson to a witch doctor and let the witch doctor prescribe treatments for his young prince. The AGW fanatics have dragged us to the climate witch doctors, after all.

“no victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can ‘prove’ his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.” This statement is unfortunately correct. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, it is virtually impossible to determine the cause of a cancer. There are many chemicals that have been implicated but, and I stand to be corrected, there are none which, with proper application, can be guaranteed to cause cancer (I except radium, plutonium, and similar radioactive elements). What is true is that there is a very good statistical relation between smoking and cancer. So if you smoke, you are more likely to get cancer. The more you smoke the more likely you are to get cancer. But it is not guaranteed, any more than if you do not smoke you will not get cancer.

Well said, saves me from having to reply to this subthread. The assertion that a specific individual cannot prove that their specific cancer is caused by secondhand cigarette smoke is irrelevant. What is quite clear from the statistical evidence is that:

a) There exist well founded, empirically supported causal chains for molecules found in cigarette smoke to alter the probability of an individual getting cancer. In many cases the evidence for this alteration is very strong — specific molecules binding to specific sites with a known effect on cancer resistance, as in this recent study:

Note that the damage caused by reactive oxygen species goes beyond just cancer. They inhibit the correct/normal function of the cellular sodium pump, increasing the probability of a variety of kinds of damage to the cell. For that matter, similar kinds of damage are associated with other kinds of smoke. Smoke of any sort isn’t terribly good for you — you inhale particulates (including radioactive particulates), a variety of organic molecules such as benzene known to be carcinogenic or teratogenic, as well as a cornucopia of specific molecules such as ozone, various alkaloids, that can cause damage in ways known and unknown.

b) There is a wealth of statistical evidence proving the association between secondary smoke and increased rates of many diseases including various forms of cancer. Again, hardly surprising — what is surprising is that anybody would seriously doubt it. Physicians certainly don’t — they have to deal with the sequellae of cigarette smoking all the time. My 23 year old son is trying to quit smoking (we’ve been nagging him to do so for years). Sadly, he has been feeling increasingly ill for a short while know with something chronic happening in his throat. We are waiting on a biopsy of tissue to discover whether or not he has cancer at age 23. Normal, healthy 23 years olds almost never get cancer of the throat — is there anyone (including him) that will doubt that if he has cancer it was caused by his smoking?

Anyway, here is a review article (sadly paywalled) that goes over some 50 epidemiological studies that affirm the fact that chronic second hand exposure to cigarette smoke increases your probability of getting cancer(s).

To quote from the abstract: “A meta-analysis of over 50 studies on involuntary smoking among never smokers showed a consistent and statistically significant association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk. Smoking is currently responsible for a third of all cancer deaths in many Western countries. It has been estimated that every other smoker will be killed by tobacco.”

It also increases your exposure to stinky clothes, cars, drapes in houses, bad breath, discolored teeth. It increases economic risk that is both collectively borne and individually borne by “second hand” bystanders — who do you think will pay for it if my son does have cancer? Me. Everybody who has insurance. And sure, my son, although not in money as he has none yet. He might pay for the stupidity of his continuing addiction with his life and his health. And finally, it costs him actual money up front to reap the wealth of all of this primary and secondary damage.

Smoking is not harmless, not to yourself, not to others around you. There isn’t really any doubt about this, although the tobacco industry has done its best to create some for decades — unsurprising given that they make tens of billions of dollars selling a highly addictive product with no actual benefit and with enormous primary and secondary costs that they do not have to pay associated with its use. Alcohol in moderation is beneficial compared to the risks for most people. Burning coal to generate electricity has obvious benefits that mitigate the risks. Hell, even smoking pot in moderation is potentially at least somewhat beneficial to some people, compared to the risks and costs. Nicotine, on the other hand, makes a good insecticide, non-stale tobacco smells good and makes a lovely scented soap, and that’s about it for the benefits of tobacco.

I’m not a fan of prohibition as it doesn’t work, and prohibiting an addictive substance in a country with tens of millions of addicts would simply create a black market (one already exists driven by the taxes on tobacco alone, even with it otherwise legal). But don’t go around pretending that smoking is harmless just because it won’t be “proven” that it was cigarettes that caused his throat cancer, if indeed it turns out to be throat cancer. I’ve got my fingers crossed that it isn’t, that this is the wake-up call that he needs to kick the pointless habit, and that he lives to be 100 in great health. But every day he continues to smoke perpetuates and increases his risk that this will not be the case.

Opinions are cheap…everyone has one. A second opinion is always a good idea. An informed opinion, rare. Truth is, the PHD graduates with 4% of the sum total knowledge available within their chosen field of study. The rest of it is by invitation only. The price ?….your soul. I’ve had a few try to recruit me, but alread seeing through to the end result of what I would be working on, I refused. Somwe people are educated beyond their own intelligence. I never had a good opinion toward normal education. I was too far into my own creative world to be a good student. I went to 10 different schools. Finally I was a great student once my eye-hand coordination was put to use in welding, as I was in a vocational school for the last few years. I was wasting my time, but my dad insisted on at least a grade 12. I ended up not even going to the traditional celebrations like picking up the diploma, going to the school dance etc… That was for those who placed value on social position & I preferred to keep to myself & a few friends. I ended up learning a few things along the way in the following years, but the real lessons came after a prayer on my face.

All of the places I had been, the questions that were still there, all gained far more meaning. I had 50% of all formal education in several trades. Then ten years of broken military service including intelligence. I also gained 13 years of experience in the traditional energy industry. I worked on a founding a stripmine venture, import / export, and gained access to the derivitives funding facilities, which is completely misunderstood even by the participating bank senior officer who as looking at smoke & mirrors didn’t understand it. As an intelligence operative I have been to part of HAARP at Tromso several times. I have also been underground. Impressive. Here again, much hevier compartmentalization controls knowledge, and the rest by invitation only. Well, lets just say, I have been ignorant enough to play the game, but smart enough to get out of it. Millions have read the bible, but the Holy Spirit provides comprehension. The lack of his presence in the lives of the readers, are why, it’s the most well read book in the world, yet the least understood. Heaven has many unclaimed benefits, like in the form of music & books. All the most advanced knowledge should go to the youth for their education, instead of the reverse under the synagogue of satan who control it like just about everything else. The result, “my people die for lack of knowledge”.

On the morning my mother went to the Hamilton Hospital for her so called lukemia treatment, was the day of my awakening. I began making discoveries. Eg: That those who stold my stripmine business by financial interference had gotten personal in their attacks. She had refused membership to MENSA. She displayed gigts of the Holy Spirit. She was bearing fruit. From that morning, she lasted six weeks. That first day of her treatment before going home to die, was the morning of 9/11.

Today I would much preferr to be in face down prayer, than to even consider walking into any school of so-called higher learning ? And I thought it was funny putting military & intelligence together…. Nuff said.
Here are a few examples of what they “still don’t teach at Harvard”.
– The nature & physics of creation. – The nature & physics of energy. – The dual nature of man. -The structure of the synagogue of satan. – The location of the ark of the covenant. – The return of ancient energy already widely used/ STILL in secret yet in plain site – Conditions in the world “as in the days of Noah” now returning. – Recognition of frequency attacks, & advanced technologies. The multiple purposes of geoengineering, leading to altering the DNA & calcified pineal gland replaced by psycotronics for control of civilization. Identity of the witness of Ephraim (a descendent of Aaron & Moses).- Identity of the witness of Judah. – Identity of the false prophet. – Identity of petrus Romanus & his spiritual condition. Since then the answers have been far more revealing, because I was asking far better questions. See; http://www.authorthat.wordpress.com The Blogathon Philabuster. Because the witness to evil must not remain silent. PS. Go deep, be silent, listen to that still quiet voice.

There is a psychological term for this, its called “Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy”. What it refers to is parents that are constantly paranoid that their child is suffering from some – almost always imaginary – medical condition.

No, that’s not the definition. The syndrome includes parents (usually the mother) harming the child in order to get praise and self worth by taking the child to medical care.

[Inflammatory stuff that is way OT and I will post no more comments here, I might reply on an Open Thread.]

Some people claim the syndrome doesn’t exist and given the horror stories promulgated by various Child Protective Service agencies, it’s clear that many diagnoses are totally bogus. (Red flag – often the claim is one child is singled out by the mother for MSBP abuse.) My wife is a lawyer who defends people falsely accused of child abuse and neglect. What I’ve learned with here has been good training into the psychology of climate scientists and warmist. Hey, it’s almost on topic!

The inventor of this label/diagnosis, Sir Roy Meadow, has now been completely discredited in the UK courts and there is a tremendous public outcry for review of all cases in which he has ever been involved. (For more information see Published Articles) We believe there should be a review of all cases world-wide in which MSP label has been used.

The link between lung cancer and smoking is so strong that it gets a disproportionate amount of attention. Less clear is the link with heart disease because there are so many other causal factors. I was surprised to learn that while some 7% of smokers die of lung cancer, 21% die prematurely of heart disease compared to non-smokers. Nicotine (which constricts blood vessels), carbon monoxide (which ties up hemoglobin and reduces oxygen transport), and free radicals (which trigger inflammation) do not seem to be good things to inflict on the heart.

“If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can’t wait for [endless] tests… The risk of delay is so enormous that we can’t wait until we are absolutely sure the planet is dying.”

Classic, brainless Prince Chuckles arguments, full of Appeals to emotion (“sick child” false analogy, plus the “planet is dying” whinge) and to Authority (“doctor), as well as the fear-based, illogical “risk of delay” argument.

As a parent, let me point out that children who are cutting teeth often run a fever right before the tooth breaks through and then the fever goes away. To give aggressive antibiotics each time is in fact what many parents demand, but it is pointless and harmful. This urge to “do something” even when doing something might be very harmful is something to be resisted. Doing something can be worse than doing nothing whether it is medicine or foreign policy or climate change.

The earth is not a child and climatologists are not pediatricians. A pediatrician has been trained in children’s medicine and has seen thousands of sick kids and is familiar with the history and practice of treating children and the potential dangers of a high fever. Climatologists know next to nothing about the “temperature” history of the earth nor can they predict the future.

“Anything that helps us treat a disease better is welcome. Doctors have been led astray before by misunderstanding a disease and what makes it better. Neurologist Robert Sapolsky tells us about the turn of the last century, when doctors discovered that babies who died inexplicably in their sleep had thymus glands that seemed far too large. Blasting them with radiation shrank them effectively, and so was administered to perfectly healthy children to prevent this sudden infant death syndrome… ”

“I challenge you to produce one legitimate study that proves second-hand smoke is the cause of those diseases.”

But Pippen Kool has disappeared. Vanished. Every assertion he made has been thoroughly deconstructed by other readers here. Pippen made his hit-and-run commentary, then tucked tail and ran, rather than attempt to defend it.

As repeatedly pointed out by others here, there are NO legitimate studies proving that secondhand smoke causes disease. None. As Pippen Fool admits, the ‘secondhand smoke’ narrative was and is promoted by self-serving government bureaucrats, who then use the resulting scare to garner more funding and grow their bureaucracy. But he cannot produce one valid study to back up his beliefs.

Any fool can see what is happening right now, with the ‘man-made global warming’ scare: More than $100 BILLION has been wasted on government grants since 2001, to ‘study climate change’. The result? No global warming for at least 17 years, despite the endless predictions of such by the same self-serving alarmists, who cash in on a non-existent scare.

Now that the planet has stopped warming for more than 200 months, these same self-serving bureaucrats have simply and arbitrarily extended the global warming scare out to 30 – 60 years from now, without a shred of legitimate scientific evidence. It is nothing but a baseless assertion, intended to keep the grant gravy train on track. It is just as likely that the planet will cool over the next 60 years. If so, where do taxpayers go for a refund?

It is all about the taxpayer loot. They have no shame, and they rely on foolish lemmings like Pippen Kool to replay their runaway global warming narrative. They are fraud artists, and their deluded followers like Pippen wouldn’t know the Scientific Method from their nether reaches. People like Pippen Fool are simply enablers of their pseudo-scientific nonsense.

“As a piece of advice to the three sponsoring organisations of NIPCC, I would be totally upfront about how they fund themselves and who their donors are.”

===================================

Then let me be upfront: I donated $250 to Heartland for its NIPCC study. I am not rich. Like most donors, we give moey that we earned in order that the truth counteract the lies coming out of the UN/IPCC — which is funded by tax money confiscated from mostly unwilling payers in the various governments.

They lie for money. Because who would give them grants, if they told the unvarnished truth: that there is no climate crisis. Global temperatures have been both higher and lower than now, and during both warming and cooling episodes, CO2 was much lower than now. Thus, the demonization of “carbon” is an unscientific sham, based on a trace compund every bit as essential to life on Earth as H2O is. But it is much easier to tax CO2 than rain.

Currently, we are in a true “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but just right. We have been in this benign climate for the past century and a half, yet there are people who want to scare the population out of more loot despite the plain fact that no crisis exists, or is even on the horizon. There is nothing to be alarmed about.

In the past, global temperatures have changed — both warming and cooling by more than 10ºC, within only a couple of decades. But over the last few centuries, global temperatures have been amazingly flat.

Now, tell us about your funding questions. Who funds the UN/IPCC? Do you even know? Or are you trying to shift the spotlight to small time donors like me, who only want scientific truth to replace the rampant fraud and lies emitted in AR-5?

If the government/IPCC funding stopped tomorrow, there would be no scare. It would also stop. Because it is all trumped-up nonsense, as every rational reader of this site knows.

I recommend that you donate to Heartland and the NIPCC. They do a tremendous amount of good on a shoestring budget. You would know that your money goes toward scientific truth, not for the IPCC’s self-serving, pseudo-scientific, runaway global warming propaganda.

note the conclusion…”The results of the available carcinogen derived biomarker studies provide biochemical data which support the conclusion, based on epidemiologic investigations, that SHS causes lung cancer in non-smokers.”

Considering that Philip Morris’ own data show that ” Inhaled fresh sidestream cigarette smoke is approximately four times more toxic per gram total particulate matter (TPM) than mainstream cigarette smoke. Sidestream condensate is approximately three times more toxic per gram and two to six times more tumourigenic per gram than mainstream condensate by dermal application. The gas/vapour phase of sidestream smoke is responsible for most of the sensory irritation and respiratory tract epithelium damage” the conclusion is not really surprising

I’m looking forward to seeing the NIPCC rebuttals.
Why be so gloomy? we can’t afford to control IPCC climate change, we don’t have the resources either and it would be impossibly unjust. See here where theology trumps (dodgy) science: http://revfelicity.org/2013/09/17/god-in-climate-change/
KevOB

Thanx for your opinion. But since you ignored what was explicitly claimed : “proof”, your bought & paid for study fails. There is no testable proof that second and third hand smoke kills bystanders.

My comment was in response to unproven claims being made about “second hand” and “third hand” smoke, as if they have been proven. Not about first hand smoke. You may not be aware of it, but a large part of the human population lived in caves and other enclosed shelters for many thousands of years. Those enclosures were poorly ventilated. Thus, the air was laden with smoke particulates. That environment was much dirtier than any current smoker’s. But our bodies have cilia in the lungs that sweeps out particulates. Our bodies can easily handle some extra particles in the air; read Gail Combs explanation @September 17, 2013 at 12:35 am about bartenders. Read statistican Matt Briggs’ breakdown of causes, and what would be necessary to equal a first-hand smoker’s intake. Read J Peden’s comment above Gail’s. I take their reasoned explanations over someone’s failed reading comprehension.

Pre-modern life spans were well under forty years. Today, even heavy smokers have much longer life spans [I don’t smoke]. Therefore, it is simply an opinion that the diseases listed have been “proven” to cause fatal diseases. They may be a cause, and they may not. But it is far from “proven”, which is the explicit claim that was made, and the claim I disputed. As I explained, I responded to the failed claim that “second hand” smoke has been proven to kill people. That is a false assertion. There is no such proof.

If you have any proof, then post it right here. Otherwise, your comment was simply a strawman distraction, regarding what was actually being claimed by someone with an axe to grind.

I’ve met Joe Bast, and the amount of work he does in the interest of honest science is amazing. He destroys the false science of the IPCC, and that is why he is always being attacked: he uses verifiable, testable science to falsify the IPCC’s claims. They don’t like it. But they won’t debate him, either, which tells us who is being honest, and who isn’t.

Not only is it a bad analogy, it’s one of the dumber bad analogies I’ve ever heard. But let’s keep things in order, eh?

But, if the treatment prescribed means your child will face significant personal restrictions in the future due to the treatment, and the doctor refuses to discuss alternatives, wouldn’t you as a parent want to get a second opinion?

I would first lightly place the back of my hand to my child’s forehead; if it felt too warm I would break out the thermometer. If the thermometer confirmed my suspicion I would start the time-tested treatment regimen for the common cold, which, as every adult in the world except Charlie knows, is viral and hardly ever responds to antibiotics. Only after exhausting these options would I consider even calling a doctor, and I would consider a course of antibiotics only if the Dr. could convince me that there was a secondary, bacterial infection.

My sympathies to our British cousins, but Charlie is just the latest in a long line of royal embarrassments, and at some point Britain will have to seriously question whether this tradition is worth its many costs (and if not, Britain will undoubtedly get more resistance from its American cousins than its citizens). But things do seem to be changing. I had a British colleague in the early 90s who hosted a brown-bag lunch seminar when Charlie decided that he was an architectural critic. Many of us wondered why the British press and British architects seemed to be giving him the velvet glove treatment. “Oh, we don’t ever criticize the royals; it just isn’t done.” That no longer seems to be the case. Small steps.

Pippen Kool says:
September 16, 2013 at 10:17 pm
“Mario Lento says: “Could you elaborate on what good Al Gore has done?”

Google is your friend. Use it.”
+++++++++++++++
Seriously Pippen: I asked you if you could elaborate on what good Al Gore has done. I can find anything I want on Google. Do you know of any single quantifiable good that Gore has done?”
I suspect you don’t actually know of anything. Do you actually have an opinion based on some fact or is it that you parrot the lines of your peers so you are not forced to think?

Dbstealey,
“Thanx for your opinion”
I didn’t offer my opinion I offered a paper, a quote from another paper and a reference to rgb’s comment. You asked for one paper, so I just picked one. In addition there are thousands and thousands of other papers, medical reports, autopsies, epidemiological studies, Surgeon General Reports, laboratory experiments etc etc confirming the link.

“your bought & paid for study”
I think this is a very strange comment from someone upthread saying “Only a fool” would dismiss the NIPCC report on the basis of it’s funding. In fact I chose that paper from “Tabacco Control” specifically to find out if my hunch about your one eyed scepticism was correct. Thanks, you proved me right. And PS I did also include a reference to Philip Morris’ very own test (contained in a peer reviewed paper) confirming dangerous levels of *proven* tumourigenics.

“My comment was in response to unproven claims being made about “second hand” and “third hand” smoke, as if they have been proven. Not about first hand smoke.”
The only mention to first hand smoke in my comment was Philip Morris’ own data which shows second hand smoke contains several times the concentrations of KNOWN tumourigenic agents than first hand.

“You may not be aware of it, but a large part of the human population lived in caves and other enclosed shelters for many thousands of years. Those enclosures were poorly ventilated. Thus, the air was laden with smoke particulates.That environment was much dirtier than any current smoker’s. But our bodies have cilia in the lungs that sweeps out particulates”
Irrelevant, most tumourigenic chemicals such as nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone are not found in wood smoke. Also “you may not be aware” that chemicals in the cigarette smoke damage, in particular, the cilia you speak of so after long enough they provide no protection from inhaling particles.

“Pre-modern life spans were under forty years. Today, even heavy smokers have much longer life spans ”
Thanks to vastly improved medical knowledge and care. Thanks to the same scientists, researchers and MD’s that have also proven the link to lung cancer et al. It is a testament to how well the experts understand the link that we can devise ways to treat it and extend life so heavy smokers can “have much longer life spans” and lengthen their multi billion dollar a year drain on the US economy.

“Today, even heavy smokers have much longer life spans [I don’t smoke]. Therefore, it is simply an opinion that the diseases listed have been “proven” to cause fatal diseases”
Non sequitur.

“Read the statistican Briggs’ breakdown of causes”
That’s your “proof”? I offer you a peer reviewed paper which has itself reviewed hundreds of papers on the issue all independently reaching the same conclusion and you give me a Mr Briggs “statistician” blog post. Sorry, you demand higher standard than that all the time I’m sure. So do I.

“I take their reasoned explanations over someone’s failed reading comprehension.”
Ditto, only that I am referring to the vast body of medical specialists and the medical literatures reasoned explanations not Coombes and Briggs et al.

There are more than 50 chemicals in all types of tobacco smoke that are known, or as you semantically prefer, proven to cause cancer. I mentioned one. Nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone. This is “proven” to be in all types of cigarette smoke. It is “proven” to cause cancer formation from as little as a single dose, in testable, verifiable, empirical and repeatable tests. I shouldn’t really need to provide links for this, just google it and it’s not hard to find.

Bruce Cobb says:
September 17, 2013 at 6:44 am
Classic, brainless Prince Chuckles arguments, full of Appeals to emotion (“sick child” false analogy, plus the “planet is dying” whinge) and to Authority (“doctor), as well as the fear-based, illogical “risk of delay” argument.
————————
Well said Bruce.

Is their anyone left who doesn’t know that Prince Charles is a f**king idiot ? Let him spout his crap. The death knell will come sooner.

“heavy smokers… lengthen their multi billion dollar a year drain on the US economy.”

Like your other assertions, that one is simply wrong. According to The Economist, cigarette smokers provide a net benefit to the health care system because smokers on average tend to die earlier, and faster, than non-smokers. They don’t tend to linger on for years, being a constant drain on the system. Lung cancer tends to kill quite rapidly. My mother and father were both smokers, and once diagnosed, they didn’t last long at all; only a matter of months.

No one has PROVEN that 2nd and 3rd hand smoke causes measurable premature deaths. As compared to what, may I ask? People living downwind from a coal power plant? People living next to an inner city freeway? People working in asbestos mines? The FDA used the second hand smoke canard to increase its power and regulatory reach. Even if 2nd-hand smoke had been proven to kill bystanders in statistically significant numbers, I think you have an issue with personal freedom. But one thing is certain: smokers are not a drain on the U.S. health care system as you mistakenly assume.

Since you cannot discern between ‘proof’ and ‘opinion’, feel free to express your opinion. Just be aware: that’s all it is. Opinion. Because you have no verifiable, testable, reproducible proof of your assertions about second and third hand cigarette smoke. Just because you believe it, that does not constitute proof — which has been my entire point all along.

I’m looking forward to seeing the NIPCC rebuttals.
Why be so gloomy? we can’t afford to control IPCC climate change, we don’t have the resources either and it would be impossibly unjust. See here where theology trumps (dodgy) science: http://revfelicity.org/2013/09/17/god-in-climate-change/
This deacon is not alone.
The other day I read a snippet that described a talk being given by a past Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, to the Sydney Institute, on Climate Change and the Environment.
The title is ‘One religion is enough’.

September 17, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Nick Kermode says:
“heavy smokers… lengthen their multi billion dollar a year drain on the US economy.”

Like your other assertions, that one is simply wrong. According to The Economist, cigarette smokers provide a net benefit to the health care system because smokers on average tend to die earlier, and faster, than non-smokers.

I tend to agree with dbstealey, the lynching of cigarette smokers, the kangaroo court of epidemiology (a “discipline” up there with AGW in terms of scientific rigour (not) and political corruption) are symptoms of a creeping puritanism in western society. In the light of the latest public lynching of Dr Phil, we now have to get used to the new fact that if we have sex with a woman who has drunk any alcohol in the previous week we could find ourselves in jail as rapists. These puritanical public agency busy-bodies (who know little about alcohol, sex or smoking) have nothing better to do with their lives than spuriously inflating the risks of smoking (first, second, third, nth hand), drinking, socializing, sport, in fact of doing anything other than fattening ones bottom behind a government agency desk interfering in other people’s lives – data has to be massaged to “prove” that all these are activities get more dangerous by the day, so more and more regulation, tax and interference are needed.

I like going to China. Everyone smokes and no-one gives a damn. You can still smoke in restaurants.

Nick Kermode says:“heavy smokers… lengthen their multi billion dollar a year drain on the US economy.”

If you took away cigarette manufacturers taxes overnight the resulting economic collapse would be worse than 2007, especially if you add alcohol and petrol. By far the biggest, most helpless addicts to tobacco, alcohol and petrol are high-taxing governments. In Europe practically all the price of petrol, tobacco and alcohol goes straight to government with a tiny fraction of overhead for distribution. Governments say “stop smoking, drinking, driving” but they don’t really mean it. Do as we do, don’t do as we say.

I also agree with you. Just went back through my post and chucked that in as a bit of a red herring,or maybe more of an anecdotal fallacy. Helps give an insight as to who one is engaging with on the internet.

DBStealy, couldn’t agree more with your post at 4:49pm. They are addicted to the tax money and also can’t afford the 20-30 (?) year lag in healthcare costs that would need to be paid after revenue ceased. Also as you say earlier smokers don’t live as long, so dying just before retirement, or earlier, is win-win for the government. It’s a no brainer for them ;)